Non-Idiotic Historiography Text?

[Fifty]

So I read an intro to historiography text last night and it was so bad that I had a brain aneurysm and almost died.

Since I now despise the discipline of history for taking such transparent idiocy seriously, I am hoping some of ya'll can recommend a better historiography text that will make me realize that (hopefully) the one I read is just a heterodox anomaly, and mainstream history isn't so stupid.

I'm not gonna name the text I read just in case one of you recommends it so I can know to never take you seriously again.

Since I have a BA in philosophy I'm sure the text can be advanced as you want and it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Masada]

May I ask which historiography text nearly killed you. Just for future reference when dealing with your fellows...

EDIT:

I'm not gonna name the text I read just in case one of you recommends it so I can know to never take you seriously again.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't think I've ever read a book about historiography, actually. We have a class that is required for History majors which basically teaches it, but the only book assigned for the class is basically a simplified copy of the Chicago Manual of Style. Sorry I can't be of help. I'd be curious to see how many history buffs around here actually have read an "intro to historiography" book.

 

[BananaLee]

Neither have I, and I'm doing a history major.

Maybe that book was a joke book - like Gavin Menzies.

 

[Fifty]

So is historiography not seen as particularly important, or are the true principles of it just obvious, or what?

 

[Dachs]

It's not that it isn't seen as important, but that I don't believe there are many good introductory texts to the whole thing out there. Most of what I learn about historiography comes from works on a given subject or period that overview the other writings to that point and discuss them in some detail.

 

[citedon]

I majored in history in undergrad school a long time ago. We had a one semester course called Historiography. It mostly dealt with teaching us how to do research, write coherently, cite references, etc. We had a couple books that had short articles and some excerpts. Most were pretty interesting. I don't recall ever using any book called Intro to Historiography or anything of the sort. I would be very interested in knowing what book Fifty has read.

 

[shortguy]

Was it by any chance Modern Historiography: An Introduction by Bentley? Based on my extensive research* it sounds like the sort of pompous, overwrought nonsense that you'd hate.

In my admittedly limited experience, historians are very interested in the nuts and bolts of historiography--analyzing the reliability and biases of particular sources and whatnot--and not really interested in the broader philosophical questions of historiography.

*It showed up on the first page of an Amazon search and had one review that savaged it. I'd be a bad historian I think.

 

[innonimatu]

Since you're so interested in philosophy, The Idea of History, R. G. Collingwood.

Good look at the evolution of the concept of history. Do keep in mind that it was written nearly 70 years ago.

 

[Masada]

What is History? by E.H Carr is in the same vein as The Idea of History.

It was written 40 years ago and has the occasional go at Collingwood to boot.

 

[Fifty]

It's not that it isn't seen as important, but that I don't believe there are many good introductory texts to the whole thing out there. Most of what I learn about historiography comes from works on a given subject or period that overview the other writings to that point and discuss them in some detail.

Well I guess I'm not SO interested in the history of historiography as to what principles of historiography are in the main stream of academic history today.

Any recommendations on that score?

@shortguy: Nope, not that one!

@inno/masada: Are both of those in the main stream?

 

[innonimatu]

@inno/masada: Are both of those in the main stream?

Does philosophy ever get old?

But I understand what you meant. Collingwood is still respected, AFAIK, but the book is dated. It's a brief review of how the idea of historiography (its subject, its goals, its methods) was regarded by past philosophers and historians, but his analysis ends in the 1930s and he has a view of his own to promote (I mostly agree with it, by the way). There were some notable developments after that, especially the "nouvelle histoire" which was by then just starting.

 

[Masada]

What is History is mainstream, even if it is a touch dated.

 

[Verbose]

Seconding Masada to try Marc Bloch's classic "What is History?" Still read as one of the most important books on historiography in the 20th c.

Was it Hayden White triggering the aneurysm?

 

[Verbose]

Perhaps try Reinhart Koselleck's "Futures Past" (Vergangene Zukunft). Not brand new either, but more recent, and sort of redefined historiographic discussion when it appeared in the 1970's.

 

[Verbose]

So is historiography not seen as particularly important, or are the true principles of it just obvious, or what?

I'm better at the historiographic discussion specifically re. history of science, if that would at all interest you?

But it might be that political history is actually less interested? Can't say I know for sure, but historians in general tend to more interested in fiddling with sources and stuff than with the theory of it. Lack of interest, leads to lack of familiarity, leads to lack of skill, which makes philosophers puke. Should a historian display any kind of active interest, it tends to be of a pragmatic and slightly mercenary kind where they go mining for something they find immediately useful, but never in a million years intend to try to develop like a philosopher would. (I know I don't give a rat's ass beyond that.)

So, as apparently you have a pretty solid investment in your identity as a philosopher, no one should kid themselves into thinking that as such you will EVER think academic history does anything but suck donkey balls.

Should you start entertaining such heretical thoughts I'm sure the Cabal of Philosophers will ostracize you asap. Not that there is really any risk of that since dismissing history is a rite of passage for any self-respecting philosopher anyway.

Of course, from the other side of the fence, philosophers get dismissed for being historically ignorant and naive anyway, so everyone is happy and collective identities aren't in jeopardy.

 

[Plotinus]

No, Verbose, it's analytic philosophers who look down their noses at history. Historical philosophers get caught in the middle!

 

[Agent327]

So I read an intro to historiography text last night and it was so bad that I had a brain aneurysm and almost died.

Since I now despise the discipline of history for taking such transparent idiocy seriously, I am hoping some of ya'll can recommend a better historiography text that will make me realize that (hopefully) the one I read is just a heterodox anomaly, and mainstream history isn't so stupid.

I'm not gonna name the text I read just in case one of you recommends it so I can know to never take you seriously again.

Since I have a BA in philosophy I'm sure the text can be advanced as you want and it shouldn't be an issue.

You're judging a discipline you're - apparently - not familiar with based on one book? I'm certain there are quite a few historiographic texts up to even your high standard, as well as I'm certain that it won't be hard for you to locate them. History, like philosophy, has various schools and not a common denominating definition. That notwithstanding there are many excellent historians. Try Herodotus, for starters.

 

[Verbose]

No, Verbose, it's analytic philosophers who look down their noses at history. Historical philosophers get caught in the middle!

Why you're right of course!

In my defense, in Sweden we don't really get academic philosophers of any other variety than the analytic ones. They're a pretty crappy bunch too, by international standards, unlike their colleagues in Finland who are at least good at what they do.

 

[Illdisposed]

Since you're so interested in philosophy, The Idea of History, R. G. Collingwood.

Good look at the evolution of the concept of history. Do keep in mind that it was written nearly 70 years ago.

I think Collingwood is a bit rough and scholastic to begin one's endeavors in historiography. Instead, I'd recommend to begin with " History and Historians " by Mark Gilderhus. It's quite pleasant and entertaining read, gives basic insights into theory of history and its development, and written in a very concise and eloquent manner. The only downside is that it examines only western school of thought.